He was certainly playing with fire, but as you can hear the announcers say Butler had no timeouts and they wanted Zoub’s to make it. Why do something your opponent wants you to do? Make them uncomfortable. If he makes it, they have 3.6 seconds left to go to a home run play since they have no TO. If Butler makes a 3 and it goes into overtime, Butler could ride that momentum to a victory.
But Zoub’s missing and forcing them to scramble doesn’t afford them the opportunity to get organized. Had Gordon’s shot go over the backboard or misses the goal altogether, I don’t think anyone questions K’s strategy. But since it “almost” went in, some will question it. In the end, it doesn’t matter because K’s strategy worked as he was rolling the dice on a win. He wasn’t playing “not to lose” that day or not often in his career. Since we’re not IN the game, we have a different feel than the people involved with the game. IIRC, we had a lot of players (Zoub’s being one) with foul trouble. Why possibly take it into overtime under those conditions?
But Zoub’s missing and forcing them to scramble doesn’t afford them the opportunity to get organized. Had Gordon’s shot go over the backboard or misses the goal altogether, I don’t think anyone questions K’s strategy. But since it “almost” went in, some will question it. In the end, it doesn’t matter because K’s strategy worked as he was rolling the dice on a win. He wasn’t playing “not to lose” that day or not often in his career. Since we’re not IN the game, we have a different feel than the people involved with the game. IIRC, we had a lot of players (Zoub’s being one) with foul trouble. Why possibly take it into overtime under those conditions?
